An Evaluation of the Enhanced Information System for COVID-19 Surveillance in Thailand, 2020: A Pre-Post Intervention Comparison
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59096/osir.v13i3.262806Keywords:
coronavirus disease, surveillance evaluation, information system, information technology, innovationAbstract
With information technology, a traditional coronavirus disease (COVID-19) surveillance system was improved with five additional features including auto-verification system, laboratory reporting system, confirmed case notification system, data feedback loops, and integrated event-based surveillance system. We conducted a surveillance evaluation to compare quantitative and qualitative attributes before and after the improvement. Qualitative and quantitative studies were conducted to measure the effectiveness of enhancing the information system according to the US-CDC framework. Qualitative attributes consisting of simplicity, acceptability, accessibility, flexibility, and stability, and quantitative attributes consisting of timeliness and completeness were investigated and compared between pre-enhanced and post-enhanced information system using the chi-square test. During January to April, there were 74,565 patients under investigation reported to the surveillance system. We interviewed a total of 16 health personnel. After the improvement, we observed statistically significant increases of completeness and timeliness from 55 to 66 and 75 to 96 percent, respectively. Almost all stakeholders (15/16) reported that the system was improved significantly. All qualitative attribute scores were increased including acceptability from 57 to 73, simplicity from 43 to 77, stability from 47 to 80, flexibility from 57 to 73, and usefulness from 50 to 80. In summary, all the qualitative and quantitative attributes were improved significantly (p-value<0.01 for the chi-square test). Enhanced information system with careful understanding of the existing workflow and stakeholders could improve performance of the surveillance system in both qualitative and quantitative attributes. Surveillance evaluation process could be used to assess the improvement, gather feedback, and identify the gaps.
References
Namwat C, Suphanchaimat R, Nittayasoot N, Iamsirithaworn S. Thailand’s response against coronavirus disease 2019: challenges and lessons learned. OSIR. 2020 Mar;13(1):33-7.
Thai Department of Disease Control. Coronavirus disease 2019 [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jun 13]. <https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/eng/index.php>
Tourism Authority of Thailand. Thai health authorities act rapidly to screen out pneumonia cases from China [Internet]. 2020 Jan 6 [cited 2020 May 5]. <https://www.tatnews.org/2020/01/thaihealth-authorities-act-rapidly-to-screen-outpneumonia-cases-from-china/>
Richards CL, Iademarco MF, Atkinson D, Pinner RW, Yoon P, Mac Kenzie WR, et al. Advances in public health surveillance and information dissemination at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Rep. 2017 Jul/Aug;132(4):403-10.
Wongsanuphat S, Sangwanloy S, Sopha P, Buangsuang W, Denduang S, Thongplean A, et al. Enhancing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) surveillance system through information technology, Thailand, 2020. OSIR. 2020 Sep;13(3):90-100.
Thacker SB, Stroup DF. Future directions for comprehensive public health surveillance and health information systems in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140:383-97.
German RR, Westmoreland D, Armstrong G, Birkhead GS, Horan JM, Herrera G, et al. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems [Internet]. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50(RR13):1-35 [cited 2020 Aug 3]. <https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5013a1.htm>
Clara A, Do TT, Dao A, Tran PD, Dang TQ, Tran QD, et al. Event-based surveillance at community and healthcare facilities, Vietnam, 2016–2017. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24(9):1649-58.
Stone E, Miller L, Jasperse J, Privette G, Diez Beltran JC, Jambai A, et al. Community event-based surveillance for Ebola virus disease in Sierra Leone: implementation of a national-level system during a crisis. PLoS Curr. 2016;8: ecurrents. outbreaks.d119c71125b5cce312b9700d744c56d8
Ratnayake R, Crowe SJ, Jasperse J, Privette G, Stone E, Miller L, et al. Assessment of community event–based surveillance for Ebola virus disease, Sierra Leone, 2015. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(8):1431-7.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Evaluation of the functionality and effectiveness of community event-based surveillance (CEBS) in Sierra Leone, February - June 2015 - Sierra Leone [Internet]. ReliefWeb. [cited 2020 Jul 10]. <https://reliefweb.int/report/sierraleone/evaluation-functionality-andeffectiveness-community-event-basedsurveillance>
Thacker SB, Qualters JR, Lee LM. Public health surveillance in the United States: evolution and challenges. MMWR Suppl. 2012 Jul 27;61(3):3-9
Thai Department of Disease Control. Communicable Disease Act, B.E. 2558 (2015) [Internet]. Nonthaburi: Thai Department of Disease Control; 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 8]. <https://ddc.moph.go.th/uploads/ckeditor/c74d97b01eae257e44aa9d5bade97baf/files/001_2gcd.pdf>
Agarwal S, LeFevre AE, Lee J, L’Engle K, Mehl G, Sinha C, et al. Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. BMJ. 2016;352: i1174.
Mondor L, Brownstein JS, Chan E, Madoff LC, Pollack MP, Buckeridge DL, et al. Timeliness of nongovernmental versus governmental global outbreak communications. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012; 18(7): 1184–7.
Birkhead G, Chorba TL, Root S, Klaucke DN, Gibbs NJ. Timeliness of national reporting of communicable diseases: The experience of the national electronic telecommunications system for surveillance. Am J Public Health. 1991; 81:1313–5.
ilk BJ, Berkelman RL. A review of strategies for enhancing the completeness of notifiable disease reporting. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005; 11:191–200.
Babakazo PD, Kabamba-Tshilobo J, Wemakoy EO, Lubula L, Manya LK, Ilunga BK, et al. Evaluation of the Influenza Sentinel Surveillance System in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012-2015. BMC Public Health. 2019;19.
Lombardo JS, Buckeridge DL. Disease surveillance: a public health informatics approach. New Jersey: Wiley; 2007.
Patil R, Anasuya A, Venkatarao E, Prasad D, Samuel R. Monitoring data quality in syndromic surveillance: learnings from a resource limited setting. Journal of Global Infectious Diseases. 2012;4(2):120.
Huaman MA, Araujo-Castillo RV, Soto G, Neyra JM, Quispe JA, Fernandez MF, et al. Impact of two interventions on timeliness and data quality of an electronic disease surveillance system in a resource limited setting (Peru): A prospective evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009; 9:16.
Kuehne A, Keating P, Polonsky J, Haskew C, Schenkel K, Waroux OLPD, et al. Event based surveillance at health facility and community level in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Global Health 2019;4: e001878.
Colizza V, Barrat A, Barthelemy M, Vespignani A. The role of the airline transportation network in the prediction and predictability of global epidemics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006; 103:2015–20.
Ferguson NM, Cummings DA, Cauchemez S, Fraser C, Riley S, Meeyai A, et al. Strategies for containing an emerging influenza pandemic in Southeast Asia. Nature. 2005;437:209–14.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Data quality monitoring and surveillance system evaluation – A handbook of methods and applications. Stockholm: ECDC; 2014.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Outbreak, Surveillance, Investigation & Response (OSIR) Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
